Govt challenges SC verdict on army chief's extension Finds 'glaring omissions, mistakes' in decision.

Islamabad -- The federal government on Thursday submitted a review petition against the Supreme Court's verdict directing the parliament to legislate on the extension/appointment of an army chief and asked the top court that it be set aside.

'The review petition was filed [in the Supreme Court] because our legal team thoroughly, comprehensively, and closely reviewed all aspects of the decision and concluded that there are several legal gaps in the verdict,' prime minister's aide Firdous Ashiq Awan said while talking to the media.

The review appeal lists the federal government, Prime Minister Imran Khan, President Arif Alvi and Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa as petitioners.

'[There are] flaws in the verdict, and legal and constitutional faults surfaced in the decision. With due respect to the judiciary, the government wants rectification of the faults and has thus decided to file the review petition. The review petition is being filed ultimately in the higher public interest,' she added.

Prime Minister Imran Khan in August had granted a three-year extension to Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, who was supposed to retire on November 29. The top court, led by the then chief justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa, however, had suspended the notification on November 26 due to irregularities in the manner of extension.

Speaking on Thursday, Firdous Awan said the option of legislation through the parliament, after filing the review petition, will remain intact, adding that Law Minister Farogh Naseem will brief the media in detail about this.

The petition, submitted by Attorney General Anwar Mansoor, questions the legal aspects of the judgement.

'The Impugned Judgment is bad in law and facts. The same is completely without jurisdiction, void ab initio and of no legal effect,' reads the petition submitted against the verdict.

It further says that the order 'suffers from material irregularities' which have 'converted the process from being one in aid of justice to a process of injustice'. It also claims that the court has 'completely overlooked' the laws laid out in the Constitution as well as 'vital laws'.

Furthermore, it has been insisted that the petition has been filed 'in the interest of public good'.

The petition says that the 'court should not have interfered on the grounds of public policy and collective conscience'.

'It is respectfully pointed out...